The U.S. Supreme Court Will Weigh The Legality Of Arizona's Immigration Law Today

This morning is the big day for Arizona's controversial immigration law to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. If upheld, law enforcement officers like Sheriff Joe Arpaio and other AZ law enforcement agencies will feel vindicated and will pursue suspected illegal aliens relentlessly. I personally think the law will be upheld but anything can happen. I believe this will be highly watched by Mexican nationals and illegal immigrants today. Arguments will begin at 10am eastern and one thing I didn't know. According to the article in the link, Justice Elana Kagan has recused herself from the bench on this hearing which will be ruled on in June, about the same time Obama's heath care law is ruled on.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17830567

 

Yesterday the Democratic Senate had hearings on SB 1070. One has to ask why they would hold hearings on it one day before the USSC hears the case. There are only two reasons I can think of. One, to get Hispanic votes. Or two, to try to influence the USSC in their decision on it. Democrats don't miss a chance of trying to win this next election. They use every trick in the book.

 

The democrats, or more specifically Obama, has made an enemy of the Supreme Court. If they pull stuff like this to try to influence them it just shows their stupidity. It will have the effect of the Supreme Court more likely voting against what they wish.

 

If the court nullifies 1070, AZ needs to demand where they get the authority to do so. The states are supposed to be sovereign and the constitution does not grant the feds the power to nullify state laws. So by the tenth amendment they have no such power.

 

States can not make laws that over ride Federal laws and it's the Feds that is in charge with border security. But what do you do when the Feds don't do their job and it adversely effects the well being of the state?

 

When there is a conflict between a State law and a Federal law the State law is nullified. This has been ruled on by the Supreme Court a long time ago. It overrules the 10th amendment.

 

where is there a conflict in 1070? Seems to me they mirror each other. Guess I will find out if the SC overturns it though

edit just read this though and it appears the judges are favoring Arizona on this one

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...-court-arizona-immigration-law_n_1451622.html

 

The several States have no longer have that former States' right, since 1808; simply because our Founding Fathers said so in Article 6, when they ordained and established our form of Government.

 

Being more fiscally responsible is one way to better promote the general welfare. A Constitutional remedy already exists for that purpose.

 

From my understanding that only applies when it involves more than one State, usually.

 

WASHINGTON – On the eve of a Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality of Arizona’s immigration law, a Senate panel held an overwhelmingly one-sided debate that was boycotted by Senate Republicans and most high-profile Arizona supporters of the statute.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who serves as chairman of the Senate Judiciary’s immigration subcommittee, blasted Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and other supporters of the law for refusing to appear to defend their stance.

Schumer also used the forum to announce that, if the Supreme Court upholds Arizona’s statute when it rules in June, he will introduce a bill to bar states from enacting their own immigration laws.

Republicans said Schumer’s hearing was political posturing aimed more at courting Latino votes in an election year than changing policy. And any bill he would introduce, which would also block Arizona’s immigration law, would stand almost no chance of passage in a Congress that is deeply divided on the issue.

Caught a bit awkwardly in the middle of the dispute between senators was Russell Pearce, the Republican former state Senate president who helped author Arizona Senate Bill 1070. Pearce was the only supporter of the law who attended Tuesday’s hearing, and he said he was disappointed that no one was there to help him defend Arizona.

Neither Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., nor John Cornyn, R-Texas, went to the hearing to speak in favor of the law. Both Kyl and Cornyn serve on the panel that held the hearing, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.

“I didn’t get a phone call (from the two senators),” said Pearce, who was recalled from office last fall but is seeking election to the state Senate again this year. “Yes, I was disappointed. It’s not just about supporting me, it’s about supporting Arizona.”

Kyl, in a written statement released shortly before the hearing began, said he would not attend because he considered it “strictly political theater” directed by Democrats.

“The timing of the hearing just one day ahead of the Supreme Court’s review of the law suggests that its purpose is either to influence the court’s decision or to garner publicity,” Kyl said. “The failure of Senate Democrats to seek input from any members of the Arizona congressional delegation before scheduling the hearing further demonstrates that it is intended to be more of a spectacle than a forum for learning anything useful for policy making.”

But Schumer said supporters of the law should welcome the opportunity to explain their position.

“If you support the law and enforce the law, why aren’t you willing to come here and defend it?” Schumer said. “I’ll say this for Mr. Pearce: At least you have the integrity to come here.”

The law makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally and requires law enforcement officers “when practicable” to determine the immigration status of a person if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. It also makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to work or solicit work in Arizona.

A federal judge blocked enforcement of those provisions the day before the law was to take effect.

Four witnesses testified at the hearing: Pearce and three Arizonans who oppose the law. Those who spoke against it were retired U.S. Sen. Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz.; Arizona state Sen. Steve Gallardo, a Democrat; and Todd Landfried, executive director of Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform.

Pearce said Arizona has a right to protect its citizens from the harmful effects of illegal immigration, which he said include increased crime and costs to taxpayers. “We must have the courage — the fortitude — to enforce, with compassion but without apology, those laws that protect the integrity of our borders and the rights of our citizens from those who break our laws,” Pearce said.

The other three said the law has led to racial profiling and discrimination against U.S. citizens who are Latinos.

DeConcini, who served in the U.S. Senate for 18 years, said he was embarrassed for his home state because of SB 1070. He showed senators a video of a news program about a Latino truck driver who was stopped by law-enforcement officials and detained until his wife could bring them his birth certificate proving his U.S. citizenship.

“I apologize for Arizona’s actions to the Latino community,” DeConcini said.

Schumer and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., were the only members of the 11-member Senate subcommittee to attend.

If the Supreme Court upholds the Arizona law, Schumer said, he will introduce legislation to bar Arizona and other states from enforcing immigration law without the direct consent and supervision of the federal government.

“It is simply too damaging to our economy and too dangerous to our democracy to have 50 different states be permitted to take their own direction when it comes to immigration policy,” Schumer said.

However, Schumer’s bill would be largely symbolic in the current Congress, which has been unwilling to take up the politically explosive issue in any substantive way.

Still, Gallardo said the hearing was a first step toward more comprehensive immigration reform at the national level. “This is a discussion we’ve been having at the Arizona Senate, but this is a federal issue,” he said. “They need to take on this responsibility.”

Julie Erfle, whose police-officer husband, Nick Erfle, was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant in Phoenix in 2007, said the hearing provided an opportunity to get more accurate information out about the law’s effects. She has been a vocal opponent of SB 1070.

 

Why are some of the elected representatives to State government wasting the Peoples' time and the Peoples' monies by engaging in the equivalent to frivolous suits? They would have engendered more confidence in their sincerity, by merely proclaiming non-binding resolutions and petitions for redress of grievances, but for recourse to enormous sums of the Peoples' money.

 

Arizona has the governor and several other people defending SB 1070 right now at the USSC. The dirty tricks never stop on either side. But seems like the Democrats are working over time doing them lately.

 

I hope the supreme court slaps Obama face again....

Seriously, what kinda chump ass president violates the constitution he swore to defend repeatedly?

 

You ask a question in which you assume that the President cares anything about the Constitution. Which he clearly dosn't.

 

I think that it will court will give it a 5-4. Based off what has been released as far as the questions the Justices have asked. But in case it doesn’t, I think what the court is going to say is that the state can’t do this, but the feds MUST do something.
Then watch Obama and the Dems not do anything like they have been for the last 4 years.

 

What objection can there be to a work visa that is friendly to the markets of our form of Capitalism. We could be solving our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Commerce that is well Regulated among the several States of the Union.

 

IT seems like they are going to side with AZ.

 

Obama's Lawyer Chokes Again

 

The several States of our Union have no Constitutional basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state.

 

They are so inept it is not even funny. How can you have a guy like this being the solicitor general? unreal.

 

When liberal justice Sotamayor says you're not making a convincing case (to the government) you know you're in trouble. How great would it be for the left wing Obama administration to be curb stomped not once, but twice, with their obscene overreaching. This is the most dangerous administration since Nixon.

 

Ouch, liberals must be seething. LOL! This is only the beginning, it is time to take back our country, from illegal aliens, and liberals. As a matter of fact, I think we should be allowed to deport liberals too.

Bucking the Obama administration, Supreme Court justices seemed to find little trouble Wednesday with major parts of Arizona's tough immigration law that require police to check the legal status of people they stop for other reasons

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis....to-allow-ariz-immigration-law/&catid=57421079

 

Curious. How was Nixon's administration dangerous minus Watergate?

 

I am actually not convinced Sotamayor is that liberal. She threw tough questions in this case, along with the healthcare law. I wouldn't be surprised if she voted against Obamacare and voted to uphold this law.